Im pretty sure Im in the minority on this board but its my opinion

[Tony-OH]

5 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

I get the concern but the part I don’t get is the idea that players/officials are suddenly going to be more likely to throw a game. 
 

When there is an odd amount of money being bet on a specific game or outcome the bells go off. You want to tell me that someone in theory could make some side money, ok but why? You are going to risk your income for less money than you are already making?  Makes no sense. 
 

As far as the constant commercials all the same one being played over and over again get on my nerves. There are some radio ads that get on my nerves because I have heard them 10,000 times. 
 

 

The issue with players betting or throwing games like back in the early 1900s has been negated by the huge increase in salaries. No reason to risk permanent banning when the major league minimum is $720K a year.

I really don't care if people want to bet on games, just maybe tone down the advertising inundation we are under.

[eddie83]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Sure..but the fans love to gamble. They love fantasy sports. 
 

On this board, we love baseball. Nationwide, people don’t care about baseball. There is a reason that talk about the NFL draft is 80% of sports shows and they quickly go through baseball highlights.

Baseball is trying to change that and embracing this helps with that.

Of course the end game is making money. That’s obvious and doesn’t need  to be said.

I’m a football fan but the draft coverage is over the top to me. I guess it may sound like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth because there is nothing more important to building a good team but it’s way too much. I’m not fretting over who gets picked 28th. 

ESPN because of the amount of money they gave the NBA and because it is a star driven league has basically ditched MLB. I was flipping thru channels last September and there were daily NBA dedicated shows on. Meanwhile years ago ESPN ditched Baseball Tonight except on Sundays. 
 

Then MLB has the issue of the playoffs occurring during the NFL/CFB season. Heck in the 80’s/90’s you would see NBC/ABC and CBS air Sunday afternoon LCS playoff games. Now MLB dies everything to avoid head to head with NFL as much as possible. 

[LookinUp]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

As to Rose, I thought he richly deserved his lifetime ban and exclusion from the HOF (which is the BBWAA’s decision, not MLB’s).  It definitely feels a bit hypocritical now, but condoning outsiders betting on baseball isn’t the same as condoning insiders doing it.   I can’t bring myself to advocating changing the Rose ban.
 

I couldn't disagree with this more.

Did Rose break a rule? Yes. Should he have been punished? Yes. Should it be literally for decades? Seems needlessly extreme to me, regardless of MLB's current embrace of gambling.

Either way, I think the real cardinal rule Rose broke was being an a-hole who refused to bend the knee to the commish after he was busted. If he just shut up and said he was sorry, he'd have been in the HoF decades ago. Instead he burnt bridges at every step, so he's still banned. 

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

The issue with players betting or throwing games like back in the early 1900s has been negated by the huge increase in salaries. No reason to risk permanent banning when the major league minimum is $720K a year.

I really don't care if people want to bet on games, just maybe tone down the advertising inundation we are under.

I hear you. 
 

MASN just doesn’t sell ads to enough companies. That said with the pregame and during the game it’s definitely all over. 

[eddie83]

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I couldn't disagree with this more.

Did Rose break a rule? Yes. Should he have been punished? Yes. Should it be literally for decades? Seems needlessly extreme to me, regardless of MLB's current embrace of gambling.

Either way, I think the real cardinal rule Rose broke was being an a-hole who refused to bend the knee to the commish after he was busted. If he just shut up and said he was sorry, he'd have been in the HoF decades ago. Instead he burnt bridges at every step, so he's still banned. 

He lied about it and at the end of the day he is not a good person. 
 

I think if he was someone who otherwise was likable and admitted he was wrong then things would have been different. 
 

That said I do think it’s wrong he is not eligible for the HOF. I’m fine he was no longer able to work in the sport. 

[Moose Milligan]

37 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I couldn't disagree with this more.

Did Rose break a rule? Yes. Should he have been punished? Yes. Should it be literally for decades? Seems needlessly extreme to me, regardless of MLB's current embrace of gambling.

Either way, I think the real cardinal rule Rose broke was being an a-hole who refused to bend the knee to the commish after he was busted. If he just shut up and said he was sorry, he'd have been in the HoF decades ago. Instead he burnt bridges at every step, so he's still banned. 

This is correct.

I saw an interview with Dowd that was from 8-9 years ago where he was speaking at a college.  He told of a a secret meeting with Rose where they laid out all the information in front of him, he still denied it all.  They wanted to make a deal with him before it all went public and all hell broke loose.  They wanted to keep it under wraps.

That right there tells me that MLB, at the time, wasn't hung up on the gambling issue....all Rose had to do would have been to cop to it, he might have had a fine to pay and a suspension.  MLB didn't want it public, they didn't want to ban Rose for life....it's not as if they uncovered it and immediately hit him with the ban hammer for gambling.  They tried to work with him.

The other thing that no one talks about is that MLB had a bigger issue with the shady characters that Rose was dealing with in order to place his bets.  There were ties to the mafia and to coke dealers, which, in the mid 80s, you didn't have to look far to find.

But keep in mind that MLB was just coming out of the Pittsburgh drug trials in '85.  They didn't want it known that Rose was associating with coke dealers and bringing shady people around the clubhouse right after it was public knowledge that the Pirates mascot was dealing blow at Three Rivers Stadium.

 

[sportsfan8703]

56 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

The issue with players betting or throwing games like back in the early 1900s has been negated by the huge increase in salaries. No reason to risk permanent banning when the major league minimum is $720K a year.

I really don't care if people want to bet on games, just maybe tone down the advertising inundation we are under.

Calvin Ridely for the Falcons got caught betting on "his" team the Falcons last year while he was hurt/suspended.  So there is that.  However, he did not face the Pete Rose ban.  

[sportsfan8703]

13 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

This is correct.

I saw an interview with Dowd that was from 8-9 years ago where he was speaking at a college.  He told of a a secret meeting with Rose where they laid out all the information in front of him, he still denied it all.  They wanted to make a deal with him before it all went public and all hell broke loose.  They wanted to keep it under wraps.

That right there tells me that MLB, at the time, wasn't hung up on the gambling issue....all Rose had to do would have been to cop to it, he might have had a fine to pay and a suspension.  MLB didn't want it public, they didn't want to ban Rose for life....it's not as if they uncovered it and immediately hit him with the ban hammer for gambling.  They tried to work with him.

The other thing that no one talks about is that MLB had a bigger issue with the shady characters that Rose was dealing with in order to place his bets.  There were ties to the mafia and to coke dealers, which, in the mid 80s, you didn't have to look far to find.

But keep in mind that MLB was just coming out of the Pittsburgh drug trials in '85.  They didn't want it known that Rose was associating with coke dealers and bringing shady people around the clubhouse right after it was public knowledge that the Pirates mascot was dealing blow at Three Rivers Stadium.

 

Maybe Rose could've had to play in the Canadian Basketball Association for a year.  Fulfill is dream.  

Edited April 20, 2023 by sportsfan8703

[24fps]

6 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Alcohol is far more dangerous and addictive. 

To whom?

[blid]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

When there is an odd amount of money being bet on a specific game or outcome the bells go off. You want to tell me that someone in theory could make some side money, ok but why? You are going to risk your income for less money than you are already making?  Makes no sense. 

To offset losses and clear gambling debt from other bets.  For gambling addicts the richer they are the more money they're going to play with.  Even the very wealthy can get in trouble.

[24fps]

4 hours ago, Moshagge3 said:

If your car was repossessed I think it would impair your ability to drive home.

If both your legs were broken because you stiffed your bookie, that would too.

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, 24fps said:

To whom?

How many DUI's are there daily in MD?  How many Gambling charges are there?  

Edited April 20, 2023 by sportsfan8703

[NCRaven]

18 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

How many DUI's are there daily in MD?  How many Gambling charges are there?  

Do you have to hijack every conversation?  This is about gambling's association with professional sports, not alcohol abuse.

[EddeeEddee]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

We have a winner!

Now, take this a step further and really apply this to baseball. It brings eyeballs to the sport and, even more importantly, younger eye balls.

When you embrace the gambling and you bring in new rules that increases the pace of play, you get more viewers and more long term viewers.

This is all very important and really, your own personal feelings about it mean far less than growing the game and making it appealing to the younger generation.

Baseball has a marketing problem. It has an age problem. This may be something that can fix that..or at least help fix it.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  Gambling did not bring younger fans to horse racing for example, at least not for long.  Gamblers love gambling, but for everyone else it can quickly become off putting.  The majority of the population I think after awhile associates losers and desperation with gambling.  It will be popular until the novelty wears off.  Look at Las Vegas.  It had to reinvent itself to be something other than the gambling center of North America to prosper.  

[Moose Milligan]

55 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

How many DUI's are there daily in MD?  How many Gambling charges are there?  

Bro.  

No one in this thread has said that gambling is worse than alcoholism or anything of the sort.  This isn't a dick measuring contest in regards to which addiction is worse, but that hasn't kept you from trying to make it one, for whatever reason.  The way you're carrying the torch against alcoholism, I'm assuming you've been affected by it and if so I am sorry to hear that.

But to try to help you out, I don't think you really understand the problem.  You can tally up the amount of DUIs in Maryland and then try to look for gambling charges (I'm not sure what those are) and try to make some sort of comparison as to which is the worse vice.  That's a little short sighted and foolhardy.  If there are 100 DUIs in Maryland it doesn't really matter if there are 90 gambling charges (again, not sure what a gambling charge is)...both are problems.  

The thing with gambling that you're really failing to understand is that it's not always as obvious as a DUI.  It's people gambling away life savings, their homes, their kids college funds.  It's not as obvious (and a lot of the time, alcoholism isn't always obvious either) as someone swerving all over the road or someone showing up to work drunk with their breath reeking of booze.  Gambling can be a bit more insidious; it's easy to spot someone at the stadium falling down drunk but it's probably harder to spot someone whose bank account just hit zero because his team didn't cover the spread.  

In other words, just because you can't see the physical effects on someone who's got a gambling problem doesn't mean it's not an issue.

So again, stop trying to make it a dick measuring contest about which the worse vice is.  It's obnoxious.

 

35 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Do you have to hijack every conversation?  This is about gambling's association with professional sports, not alcohol abuse.

In fairness, he was answering a question that he was asked.